I was wondering under what general principle the two voters who had already cast ballots were objecting to the name change.
I presume that whether they voted for “A” or “B”, their ballots would be counted. . .So they must have wanted the opportunity to change their vote if one name was removed and another inserted.
This doesn’t seem to me to be an arguement for not making the ballot substitution, but rather for allowing those voters to recast their ballots.
Toaster, do you have any knowledge about the composition of the New Jersey Supreme Court? At least 6 of the 7 Justices were nominated by GOP governors? (The site wasn’t clear about who nominated Justice Long).
Hopefully, you are aware that the U.S. Supreme Court is dominated by GOP nominees.
If, in the face of those facts, you cling to the belief that a complaisant judiciary cast a blind eye to a breaking of the “rules” in order to aid the Democrats, well, perhaps your self-analysis is correct.
Sua
The fact that Whitman nominated 6 of 7 justices would be much more relevant if she weren’t an extremely liberal republican.
Jeff
“extremely liberal republican”
Classic.
How “extremely liberal” does a Republican get? How can we encourage this trend?
Weaken education.
Of course. That explains it. :rolleyes:
BTW, Gov. Tom Kean, not Whitman, nominated Justice Stein.
Sua
No wonder you like vouchers.
Damn you, Sua! Couldn’t you have waited 30 seconds so as not to ruin my punchline! 
Just as well, minty. Your punchline doesn’t work. I don’t want Republicans to become more liberal and I do believe vouchers would strengthen education.
:moons december:
It doesn’t matter who nominated the justices.
NJ is a left leaning state, so you are not going to get staunch conservatives on the bench.
In addition, NJ also has a tradition of replacing a Republican judge with a Republican judge and Democrat judge with a Democrat judge regardless of who is governor. If the court was entirely appointed by Republicans then it goes to show how bi-partisan they were.
Finally, I would like to think that we could take the decision at face value as an impartial decision passed down by judges, not political hacks.
Maybe I have my head in the sand, but I want judges that KEEP the parties in check. At the beginning of this whole thing I thought the matter was prety cut and dried, but I agree with the arguement that changing candidates at this date is not specifically prohibited.
I think the Democrats pulled a very sleazy move here. I don’t think it was pre-planned, but I do think it was co-ordinated from the top when Torrecelli’s poll numbers plummeted.
However, I do think the move was legal and it is up to the voters to decide if this kind of switch is acceptable.